ecamm_set_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the key scope detail — that the whole scene set is swapped, not an individual scene — which tells the agent exactly what is at risk. It also reinforces the confirm/dry-run safety gate, though that is repeated from the schema rather than being new.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, with the prerequisite placed last. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what changes and the confirmation gate, which is the core need. It omits what happens on an unknown profile name, whether the swap is reversible, and how to obtain valid profile identifiers, leaving the agent partly unequipped for the `profile` argument.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The `profile` parameter has no description in the schema (coverage is only 50%), so the description must carry it — yet it only says "a different Profile" without indicating the accepted value format or where valid profile names come from. The `confirm` semantics are already fully spelled out in the schema, so the description adds no meaning there either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Switch Ecamm to a different Profile") and adds a clarifying gloss — "swaps the whole scene set" — that separates it from scene-level switching tools. It doesn't name the nearest alternative (ecamm_switch_scene) explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: you call it when you want a different profile, and the description notes confirm: true is needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to scene-switching tools, so the agent must infer that this replaces the entire scene set rather than one scene.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.